- Access by Xinjiang University
Why social networks are different from other types of networks
Phys. Rev. E 68, 036122 – Published 22 September, 2003
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.68.036122
Abstract
We argue that social networks differ from most other types of networks, including technological and biological networks, in two important ways. First, they have nontrivial clustering or network transitivity and second, they show positive correlations, also called assortative mixing, between the degrees of adjacent vertices. Social networks are often divided into groups or communities, and it has recently been suggested that this division could account for the observed clustering. We demonstrate that group structure in networks can also account for degree correlations. We show using a simple model that we should expect assortative mixing in such networks whenever there is variation in the sizes of the groups and that the predicted level of assortative mixing compares well with that observed in real-world networks.
References (43)
- S.H. Strogatz, Nature (London) 410, 268 (2001).
- R. Albert and A.-L. Barabási, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 47 (2002).
- S. N. Dorogovtsev and J. F. F. Mendes, Evolution of Networks: From Biological Nets to the Internet and WWW (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003).
- M.E.J. Newman, SIAM Rev. 45, 167 (2003).
- D.J. Watts and S.H. Strogatz, Nature (London) 393, 440 (1998).
- A.-L. Barabási and R. Albert, Science 286, 509 (1999).
- L.A.N. Amaral, A. Scala, M. Barthélémy, and H.E. Stanley, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97, 11149 (2000).
- M.E.J. Newman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 208701 (2002).
- M.E.J. Newman, Phys. Rev. E 68, 026121 (2003).
- R. Pastor-Satorras, A. Vázquez, and A. Vespignani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 258701 (2001).
- S. Feld, Am. J. Sociol. 96, 1464 (1991).
- M. Molloy and B. Reed, Random Struct. Algorithms 6, 161 (1995).
- M.E.J. Newman, S.H. Strogatz, and D.J. Watts, Phys. Rev. E 64, 026118 (2001).
- B. Bollobás, Eur. J. Comb. 1, 311 (1980).
- T. Łuczak, in Proceedings of the Symposium on Random Graphs, Poznań, 1989, edited by A. M. Frieze and T. Łuczak (Wiley, New York, 1992), pp. 165–182.
- Q. Chen, H. Chang, R. Govindan, S. Jamin, S. J. Shenker, and W. Willinger, in Proceedings of the 21st Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (IEEE Computer Soc. Press, London, 2002).
- M.E.J. Newman, Phys. Rev. E 67, 026126 (2003).
- S. Maslov, K. Sneppen, and A. Zaliznyak, e-print cond-mat/0205379.
- J. Park and M.E.J. Newman, Phys. Rev. E 68, 026112 (2003).
- M. Faloutsos, P. Faloutsos, and C. Faloutsos, Comput. Commun. Rev. 29, 251 (1999).
- M. E. J. Newman, in Handbook of Graphs and Networks, edited by S. Bornholdt and H. G. Schuster (Wiley-VCH, Berlin, 2003), pp. 35–68.
- H. Ebel, L.-I. Mielsch, and S. Bornholdt, Phys. Rev. E 66, 035103 (2002).
- N.D. Martinez, Ecol. Monogr. 61, 367 (1991).
- R. Cohen, K. Erez, D. ben-Avraham, and S. Havlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4626 (2000).
- J.W. Grossman and P.D.F. Ion, Congr. Numer. 108, 129 (1995).
- V. Batagelj and A. Mrvar, Soc. Networks 22, 173 (2000).
- G. F. Davis, M. Yoo, and W. E. Baker, Preprint, University of Michigan Business School, 2001.
- M.E.J. Newman, S. Forrest, and J. Balthrop, Phys. Rev. E 66, 035101 (2002).
- M. Girvan and M.E.J. Newman, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 8271 (2002).
- R. Guimerà, L. Danon, A. Df´iaz-Guilera, F. Giralt, and A. Arenas, e-print cond-mat/0211498.
- E. Ravasz and A.-L. Barabási, Phys. Rev. E 67, 026112 (2003).
- J.R. Tyler, D.M. Wilkinson, and B.A. Huberman, e-print cond-mat/0303264.
- M.E.J. Newman, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98, 404 (2001).
- G.F. Davis and H.R. Greve, Am. J. Sociol. 103, 1 (1997).
- D.L. Banks and K.M. Carley, J. Math. Sociol. 21, 173 (1996).
- D.J. Watts, Am. J. Sociol. 105, 493 (1999).
- E.M. Jin, M. Girvan, and M.E.J. Newman, Phys. Rev. E 64, 046132 (2001).
- J. Davidsen, H. Ebel, and S. Bornholdt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 128701 (2002).
- K. Klemm and V.M. Eguiluz, Phys. Rev. E 65, 036123 (2002).
- J. Jost and M.P. Joy, Phys. Rev. E 66, 036126 (2002).
- An alternative theory is that individuals introduce pairs of their acquaintances to one another, thus completing network triangles and increasing the clustering coefficient. Several models of this “triadic closure” process have been studied in the literature [35][36][37][38][39][40].
- Since our model requires all connected pairs of individuals to belong to at least one common group, we define the groups to include both the core members shown by the colors in Fig. 22 and all individuals connected directly to those core members. This makes the group memberships overlap, as they do in the model.
- We deliberately chose to define the groups in our calculation using an algorithmic method—the method of Ref. [29]—to avoid possible subjective biases in the calculation. Some might argue however that, for a network such as this, group membership could be better assigned by a knowledgable human experimenter. We have performed calculations in this way also, assigning groups according to the authors’ personal knowledge of the field. This results in somewhat different group assignments, though not grossly so, and a slightly higher value for p of The final value of r extracted from the model is however unchanged within errors, at Thus, the agreement between empirical observation and model is again good.